[quote]Today Bulldozer CPU owners can recieve a hotfix from Microsoft geared towards improving performance. After a tough start into the market its looking like Bulldozer actually was being held back by Windows OS. Most likey having to do with the way the modular technology is recognized. Time will tell just how much of a performance increase users will see if any at all[/quote]

[url="http://trubr.it/3n"]Complete article[/url] and link to hotfix

If you own a bulldozer I would jump right on this. Also interested in seeing individual performance results of both before and after the hotfix if anyone wants to send me that info or link it in this thread.
EG

Today Bulldozer CPU owners can recieve a hotfix from Microsoft geared towards improving performance. After a tough start into the market its looking like Bulldozer actually was being held back by Windows OS. Most likey having to do with the way the modular technology is recognized. Time will tell just how much of a performance increase users will see if any at all

If you own a bulldozer I would jump right on this. Also interested in seeing individual performance results of both before and after the hotfix if anyone wants to send me that info or link it in this thread.

[quote name='RuffeDK' date='15 December 2011 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1323980530' post='1342759']
Good to hear the problem lies in the roots of Microsofts lack of hardware support and not AMD.
[/quote]

The gains will be minimal at best. Only expect gains in multi core performance. Expect single thread performance to still be below Phenom in many situations. The problem still lies in the roots of AMD's architecture.

Good to hear the problem lies in the roots of Microsofts lack of hardware support and not AMD.

The gains will be minimal at best. Only expect gains in multi core performance. Expect single thread performance to still be below Phenom in many situations. The problem still lies in the roots of AMD's architecture.

[quote name='StAndrew' date='15 December 2011 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1323989953' post='1342819']
The gains will be minimal at best. Only expect gains in multi core performance. Expect single thread performance to still be below Phenom in many situations. The problem still lies in the roots of AMD's architecture.
[/quote]

If the gains are minimal --MS did it wrong. BD kicks ass in a *nix environment. There may not be a way for MS to fix the way threading works in Windows, but *nix handles the threading all by itself.

The gains will be minimal at best. Only expect gains in multi core performance. Expect single thread performance to still be below Phenom in many situations. The problem still lies in the roots of AMD's architecture.

If the gains are minimal --MS did it wrong. BD kicks ass in a *nix environment. There may not be a way for MS to fix the way threading works in Windows, but *nix handles the threading all by itself.

Improving the schedulers efficiency will definitely help heavy threaded situations, but until BD is able to hit higher frequencies to make up for the longer thread pipeline - think Pent 4, single thread performance will remain its achilles heel.

Improving the schedulers efficiency will definitely help heavy threaded situations, but until BD is able to hit higher frequencies to make up for the longer thread pipeline - think Pent 4, single thread performance will remain its achilles heel.

[quote name='StAndrew' date='15 December 2011 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1323992212' post='1342835']
Improving the schedulers efficiency will definitely help heavy threaded situations, but until BD is able to hit higher frequencies to make up for the longer thread pipeline - think Pent 4, single thread performance will remain its achilles heel.
[/quote]

The scheduler is far from being the only problem with how Windows threads. Like I said earlier *nix OSes control the threading without the application programmer having to do it manually like Windows.

Improving the schedulers efficiency will definitely help heavy threaded situations, but until BD is able to hit higher frequencies to make up for the longer thread pipeline - think Pent 4, single thread performance will remain its achilles heel.

The scheduler is far from being the only problem with how Windows threads. Like I said earlier *nix OSes control the threading without the application programmer having to do it manually like Windows.

[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 December 2011 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1324000393' post='1342877']
The scheduler is far from being the only problem with how Windows threads. Like I said earlier *nix OSes control the threading without the application programmer having to do it manually like Windows.
[/quote]

Well thats great. Its still not going to help BD's poor single thread performance, poor clock speeds/overclocking (conventional relative to the competition), poor cache latencies... shall I continue? I dont care what OS it runs on, BD is and will continue to be a poor performer in relation to its competition.

The scheduler is far from being the only problem with how Windows threads. Like I said earlier *nix OSes control the threading without the application programmer having to do it manually like Windows.

Well thats great. Its still not going to help BD's poor single thread performance, poor clock speeds/overclocking (conventional relative to the competition), poor cache latencies... shall I continue? I dont care what OS it runs on, BD is and will continue to be a poor performer in relation to its competition.

Outside of Windows, single threaded performance matters about as much as your appendix. It's nice to have but unnecessary.

Ask Luke SLI what his clocks are on all 8 of his cores compared to my 4. He's at 4.9 stable while my 2600k sits at 5GHz. His CPU costs 40% less and does a better fine job for the price doing roughly the same things.

I need one core per GPU with this machine so I went with Intel, but my development workstation has 4x 16 core Interlargos in it with 4 Firestreams. You can only shove half that many Intel cores in a box.

[quote name='StAndrew' date='15 December 2011 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1324001244' post='1342880']
I dont care what OS it runs on, BD is and will continue to be a poor performer in relation to its competition.
[/quote]

Do you even understand how *nix threading works? The OS controls threading EVERYTHING is threaded to the limits of the hardware.

BTW BD competes against the 2500k and 2550k not the 2600k and 2700k. It competes just fine against those in Windows.

Well thats great. Its still not going to help BD's poor single thread performance, poor clock speeds/overclocking (conventional relative to the competition), poor cache latencies... shall I continue?

Outside of Windows, single threaded performance matters about as much as your appendix. It's nice to have but unnecessary.

Ask Luke SLI what his clocks are on all 8 of his cores compared to my 4. He's at 4.9 stable while my 2600k sits at 5GHz. His CPU costs 40% less and does a better fine job for the price doing roughly the same things.

I need one core per GPU with this machine so I went with Intel, but my development workstation has 4x 16 core Interlargos in it with 4 Firestreams. You can only shove half that many Intel cores in a box.

[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 December 2011 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1324003408' post='1342890']
Outside of Windows, single threaded performance matters about as much as your appendix. It's nice to have but unnecessary.

Ask Luke SLI what his clocks are on all 8 of his cores compared to my 4. He's at 4.9 stable while my 2600k sits at 5GHz. His CPU costs 40% less and does a better fine job for the price doing roughly the same things.

I need one core per GPU with this machine so I went with Intel, but my development workstation has 4x 16 core Interlargos in it with 4 Firestreams. You can only shove half that many Intel cores in a box.

Do you even understand how *nix threading works? The OS controls threading EVERYTHING is threaded to the limits of the hardware.

BTW BD competes against the 2500k and 2550k not the 2600k and 2700k. It competes just fine against those in Windows.
[/quote]

I dont even know what you are arguing...

Ill have to retract part of my statement; initial multithreaded performance increases (in some apps/games) are pretty substantial.

Outside of Windows, single threaded performance matters about as much as your appendix. It's nice to have but unnecessary.

Ask Luke SLI what his clocks are on all 8 of his cores compared to my 4. He's at 4.9 stable while my 2600k sits at 5GHz. His CPU costs 40% less and does a better fine job for the price doing roughly the same things.

I need one core per GPU with this machine so I went with Intel, but my development workstation has 4x 16 core Interlargos in it with 4 Firestreams. You can only shove half that many Intel cores in a box.

Do you even understand how *nix threading works? The OS controls threading EVERYTHING is threaded to the limits of the hardware.

BTW BD competes against the 2500k and 2550k not the 2600k and 2700k. It competes just fine against those in Windows.

I dont even know what you are arguing...

Ill have to retract part of my statement; initial multithreaded performance increases (in some apps/games) are pretty substantial.

[quote name='StAndrew' date='15 December 2011 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1324005173' post='1342900']
I dont even know what you are arguing...
[/quote]

How much do you know about writing threaded OO source?

If the answer is "not much" or "not much outside of MS OSes" then here's a brief explanation:

In MS operating systems you have to write the multicore scaling manually and only have limited ability to allow your code to scale to higher core count. This isn't as true as it was at first, but --it's still pretty much the case.

In *nix (AKA UNIX and UNIX-like OSes like Linux osX and BSD) the operating system takes threading out of the programmer's hands and pretty much does it for you up to the thousands of cores supported by that particular operating system. While you can override this it's pretty unnecessary unless you're building a application for one specific machine.

With the threading limitations in Windows games and apps are often only written for 4-6 cores and with Intel specific instruction calls all of which give Intel's lower core count, but faster cores the edge. In *nix AMD kicks Intel ass b/c core density is king.

If the answer is "not much" or "not much outside of MS OSes" then here's a brief explanation:

In MS operating systems you have to write the multicore scaling manually and only have limited ability to allow your code to scale to higher core count. This isn't as true as it was at first, but --it's still pretty much the case.

In *nix (AKA UNIX and UNIX-like OSes like Linux osX and BSD) the operating system takes threading out of the programmer's hands and pretty much does it for you up to the thousands of cores supported by that particular operating system. While you can override this it's pretty unnecessary unless you're building a application for one specific machine.

With the threading limitations in Windows games and apps are often only written for 4-6 cores and with Intel specific instruction calls all of which give Intel's lower core count, but faster cores the edge. In *nix AMD kicks Intel ass b/c core density is king.

I was wrong, this patch brings 10-20% performance increase (which is SIGNIFICANT) depending on application/game tested, I hereby say that all the reviews on the internet are incorrect and that reviewers should now re-review the AMD Bulldozer CPU.
Microsoft should make this patch publicly available as IMHO this is practically a FREE HARDWARE UPGRADE (due to the significant increase in performance).

In my eyes Bulldozer is now [b]very competitive[/b] with 2500K and in some circumstances 2600K.

As controversial as this sounds I would like to see reviews of Core i5/i7 with Core Parking disabled vs Bulldozer with this new Hotfix.

Finally since this post is coming from me after all, and there just has to be something Intel Fanboyish contained I would just like to say that AMD's marketing team have been showed up as being slightly economical with the truth, Bulldozer is [b]not[/b] a true 8Core CPU. Because if it was, then none of this would have happened....

I would just like to apologise to D1llw33d, Luke_SLI and Headless_One for my Bulldozer bashing over the past few months and also say that I was wrong when I said :

A mystical and magical patch for Windows will never fix Faildozer

I was wrong, this patch brings 10-20% performance increase (which is SIGNIFICANT) depending on application/game tested, I hereby say that all the reviews on the internet are incorrect and that reviewers should now re-review the AMD Bulldozer CPU.

Microsoft should make this patch publicly available as IMHO this is practically a FREE HARDWARE UPGRADE (due to the significant increase in performance).

In my eyes Bulldozer is now very competitive with 2500K and in some circumstances 2600K.

As controversial as this sounds I would like to see reviews of Core i5/i7 with Core Parking disabled vs Bulldozer with this new Hotfix.

Finally since this post is coming from me after all, and there just has to be something Intel Fanboyish contained I would just like to say that AMD's marketing team have been showed up as being slightly economical with the truth, Bulldozer is not a true 8Core CPU. Because if it was, then none of this would have happened....

John, so no more Intel Koolaid from now please /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />

PR was not economical with the truth because when we speak of cores we refer to the Integer units. Also, I think I saw Luke post that BD has full 8-core float capability for Single-precision float calculations.

Where the PR actually bungled was the transistor count, which is 1.2bn and not 2bn as originally stated. Good thing AMD got rid of most of the PR department /biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':biggrin:' />

John, so no more Intel Koolaid from now please /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />

PR was not economical with the truth because when we speak of cores we refer to the Integer units. Also, I think I saw Luke post that BD has full 8-core float capability for Single-precision float calculations.

Where the PR actually bungled was the transistor count, which is 1.2bn and not 2bn as originally stated. Good thing AMD got rid of most of the PR department /biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':biggrin:' />

Attachments

Core i7 960 @4.14Ghz 180x23 1.3v Liquid cooled

Gigabyte G1. Assassin

EVGA GTX 560 Ti "Maximum Graphics Crysis 2"

Cooler Master HAF-X

Corsair Dominator GT CMT12GX3M3A2000C9 RAM

RMA broke my 580 SLI. Now I have a 7970 and a GTX 580 gathering dust, looking for a buyer.

But I agree that windows and bios will need to be current and up to date before applying the hotfix.
[/quote]
[i]
I apologize EG, I was just getting around to waking up and had it in an E-Mail. The post has been adjusted.
[/i]
-Hooks